FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAR 27 2018

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGELINA SAMPSON, an individual, No. 16-35015 Plaintiff for herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated; BRODIE KNOX, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-03025-SAB an individual, Plaintiff for himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated; MATTHEW JOHNSON, an individual, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff for himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated; RICHARD LANDRETH, an individual, Plaintiff for himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

JELD-WEN INC., an Oregon corporation doing business in Washington State,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Stanley Allen Bastian, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 7, 2018 Seattle, Washington

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs Angelina Sampson, Brodie Knox, Matthew Johnson, and Richard

Landreth appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Jeld-

Wen Inc. (Jeld-Wen) in their diversity action. We review de novo a grant of

summary judgment, and we “determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the nonmoving party, there are any genuine issues of material

fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law.”

Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 879 F.3d 948, 958 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiffs argue that Jeld-Wen was contractually bound to pay annual

bonuses for work performed in 2008. We disagree. The January 31, 2006, memo

concerning the manager bonus program was distributed contemporaneously with

the employment agreements. The memo is most reasonably interpreted as an

appendage to the employment agreements because the memo lacks sufficient detail

to serve as a standalone agreement. See Keystone Land & Dev. Co. v. Xerox Corp.,

94 P.3d 945, 949 (Wash. 2004) (en banc) (holding that the terms of a contract must

be “sufficiently definite”). Read together, the two documents reflect that the Jeld-

Wen Board of Directors retained discretion as to whether to award bonuses.

2 Consequently, Plaintiffs failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding Jeld-

Wen’s obligation to pay bonuses for work performed in 2008, and the district court

properly entered summary judgment in favor of Jeld-Wen. See Oracle, 879 F.3d at

958.

AFFIRMED.

3